CAT 2021 Slot 1 Question Paper

Option A: The author does not discuss a utopian narrative that involves a society without laws or social structure. Instead, he talks about regulations that curb individuality and promote homogeneity. Hence, we can eliminate Option A as a potential choice.

Option B: The second paragraph relays the following idea: "The passions are regulated, and inequalities of wealth and distinction are minimized. Needs, vanity, and emulation are restrained, often by prizing equality and holding riches in contempt. The desire for public power is curbed" Given that public power is not looked at favourably, the entire debate on the mechanism to attain this facet (public power) becomes irrelevant. Thus, we can eliminate Option B.

Option C: "Such a conclusion might be fortified by examining selectively the tradition which follows More on these points. This often portrays societies where . . . 'it would be almost impossible for man to be depraved, or wicked'. . . . This is achieved both through institutions and mores, which underpin the common life" From the above excerpt, it is clarified that the utopian doctrines are enforced by institutions present in the society; additionally, the author mentions in the preceding paragraph that security in a utopian setting is attained through the curtailment of privacy. Hence, Option C is likely to be the correct choice.   

Option D: There is no mention of regulating homogeneity through promoting competitive heterogeneity. We can, therefore, eliminate this choice.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

Option A: The statement here appears to be a distortion. The author says: "In More’s time, for much of the population, given the plenty and security on offer, such restraints would not have seemed overly unreasonable." It is being conveyed that the form of restrictions discussed at the beginning of the passage would not seem unreasonable to the citizens/members of More's utopia. However, the author feels that the opinions of modern readers would be drastically different. 

Option B: "For we have only to acknowledge the existence of thousands of successful intentional communities in which a cooperative ethos predominates and where harmony without coercion is the rule to set aside such an assertion. Here the individual’s submersion in the group is consensual (though this concept is not unproblematic). It results not in enslavement but voluntary submission to group norms. Harmony is achieved without . . . harming others." Towards the end of the discussion, the author indicates that homogeneity and stability (that often constitute a utopian universe) need not be achieved via coercion. Members of many communities voluntarily concede to the group's norms at the cost of their individuality. 

Option C: The statement here correlates to the assertion made by the author in the second paragraph: "Such a conclusion might be fortified by examining selectively the tradition which follows More on these points. This often portrays societies where . . . 'it would be almost impossible for man to be depraved, or wicked'. . . . This is achieved both through institutions and mores, which underpin the common life."

Option D: The introductory segment of the discussion highlights the restraints placed on individual freedom in a utopian society. Furthermore, the author mentions that many most utopian narratives in literary history are built on a premise devoid of individuality or diversity, as stated in the following excerpt: "People become more alike in appearance, opinion, and outlook than they often have been. Unity, order, and homogeneity thus prevail at the cost of individuality and diversity. This model, as J. C. Davis demonstrates, dominated early modern utopianism. . . . And utopian homogeneity remains a familiar theme well into the twentieth century."

Hence, Option A is the correct choice. 

The passage begins by portraying a utopian society. The author then discusses the difference in perspective concerning the underlying elements of such a society. A disagreement originates about the perception of security - while the people part of the utopia might find the shackles on their freedom to be reasonable, modern readers perceive this as suppression of heterogeneity and violation of privacy. This is presented with the intention to direct attention towards the tradeoff that exists between security and certain other essential variables. It additionally puts the spotlight on the thin line that exists between a utopia and a dystopia. The author then cites other works in literary history that depict a utopian setting along with certain key attributes that one might stumble upon in such narratives. Homogeneity comes across as a prominent idea  (a set of beliefs are considered acceptable, and the masses are expected to conform to the same). Towards the end of the discussion, the author reiterates the thin film that separates a utopia from a dystopia. He adds that while many individuals might be tempted to use these two ideas interchangeably, this shouldn't be the case. According to the author, the assertion that "all utopias are, or tend to produce, dystopias" is fallacious. He presents justification concerning the same: there are many utopian settings wherein conformity to doctrines or sacrifice of individuality is intentional - the person voluntarily submits to the group's norms for the greater good. This resonates with the term intentional community stated in the options. Option A aptly captures these principal themes. 

Option A:

Indeed, they might be twins, the progeny of the same parents. Insofar as this proves to be the case, my linkage of both here will be uncomfortably close for some readers.

The above excerpt implies that utopia and dystopia might be twins. The level of certainty is not absolute. However, Option A goes one step further to assert that they are twins and the progeny of the same parents. Hence, A cannot be inferred and is the answer.
'Insofar as this proves to be the case' can cause confusion while answering. But note that the case the author is talking about is the level of similarity between the two. Hence, what is being proven is that the two are quite similar to each other, and hence some would presume that they are twins. The excerpt, however, does not support that they actually are.

Option B: The whole passage supports the inference that utopias can be perceived as dystopias by different people. E.g. The author mentions that where some people push for relentless transparency so that they are secure, some people would perceive this as a breach of their privacy. Hence, a utopia for the former would be a dystopia for the latter.

Option C: 

People become more alike in appearance, opinion, and outlook than they often have been. Unity, order, and homogeneity thus prevail at the cost of individuality and diversity. This model, as J. C. Davis demonstrates, dominated early modern utopianism. . . . And utopian homogeneity remains a familiar theme well into the twentieth century.

Option C is a direct inference from the above excerpt. It has been mentioned that this theme of homogeneity and uniformity dominated early modern utopianism.

Option D: Throughout the passage, the author deals with conceptions of utopian societies as dealt with in literary works. We can infer that utopian societies do exist in literature where the characters practice traditions that the author made up to portray a utopian society.

The author supplements the example of the i-phone with a pertinent question: "Does it have personhood (if at all) because it is connected to me, drawing this resource from me as an owner or source?" He proceeds to then highlight the key takeaway from the example: "For the Maya (who did have plenty of other communicating objects, if not smartphones), the answer was no. Nonhuman persons were not tethered to specific humans, and they did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human." The end idea: the personhood of an object is not a function of its utility or attachment to humans {an object can be categorised as a person based on certain distinct variables aside from its relation to a human}. The only relevant information invalidating this portrayal is in Option D: if the personhood of the incense burner or stone chopper is dependent on their usefulness to humans, the purpose of presenting the example and the associated idea is undermined.

It is unclear how Options A and B invalidate the purpose of the example. Option C aligns with the author's assertions and does not touch upon the idea emphasised by the example. 

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.  

One additional complexity: the incense burner (which would have been made of clay, and decorated with spiky appliques representing the sacred ceiba tree found in this region) is categorised as a person - but also as a tree.

The additional complexity that the author talks about here is the addition of another layer in the non-binary understanding of personhood. The incense burner was already classified as a person, but now it has also been classified as a tree. Hence, we have Options A and C. Note that the third category, that is tree, has a relation with the previous two categories. The boundary separating tree and person is porous. And since the incense burner has been categorized as a tree too, the relationship between them is porous too. Hence, we can infer that the third category shares a similar relationship with the previous two categories, and A is the correct answer.

The author is not exemplifying an exception but citing an additional complexity that is present in the definition. Hence, B can be eliminated.

The author does not establish the porosity of the divine and the profane. Hence, Option D is out of the scope of the passage.

The author highlights multiple elements that constitute the Classic Mayan worldview pertaining to personhood: 

• "Nonhuman persons were not tethered to specific humans, and they did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human."
• "The Maya saw personhood as ‘activated’ by experiencing certain bodily needs and through participation in certain social activities. For example, among the faced objects that I examined, persons are marked by personal requirements (such as hunger, tiredness, physical closeness), and by community obligations (communication, interaction, ritual observance)"
• "Personhood was a nonbinary proposition for the Maya. Entities were able to be persons while also being something else...With these Maya examples, we are challenged to discard the person/nonperson binary that constitutes our basic ontological outlook"

Inspecting the options using the above ideas as filters, we notice that Option B is closest to the Classic Mayan worldview. A tribe that "perceives plants as person-plants because they form an ecosystem and are marked by needs of nutrition" acknowledges the two elementary variables for defining personhood - personal requirements and community obligations. 

Options A and C tether the personhood of the objects to their utility to humans - this does not coincide with the Classic Mayan belief. Although Option D mentions bodily needs, the interpretation of the term 'functionality' remains unclear. Hence, we can eliminate Option D. 

The idea concerning the democratising potential can be retraced to the first paragraph wherein the author states: "Nonhuman persons were not tethered to specific humans, and they did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human. . . . It’s a profoundly democratising way of understanding the world. Humans are not more important persons - we are just one of many kinds of persons who inhabit this world"

Option A: Considering proximity as an idea would undermine the portrayal of the Classic Mayan worldview. The author presents the example of the I-phone to convey how the personhood of an object is not a function of its utility or attachment to humans. If true, the statement in A would counter the premise of this example. Hence, we can eliminate this choice. 

Option B: the assessment here is quite similar to Option A; if we create distinctions within the realm of inanimate objects, this will weaken the Mayan worldview. It would diminish the democratising potential of such a viewpoint by introducing specific barriers or criteria for the classification of personhood.

Option C: The claim here runs against the Mayan idea of personhood being nonbinary. Thus, we can eliminate it since it undermines the democratising potential of the Classic Mayan worldview. 

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

Although mildly subjective, the question tests our understanding of the central idea. Across the passage, we notice the 'conflation' of tea consumption with particular virtues: it was not merely limited to benefits to the consumer but served a greater purpose. The narrative was that by drinking tea, people were/are advancing the cause of civilisation and community {thereby, imparting a sense of moral elevation}. Thus, the welfare highlighted is two-fold: both the consumer and society is benefitted. Towards the end, the author supports the narrative as follows: "It is not a stretch to say that tea marketers have advanced the particularly noble cause of human dialogue and friendship." Any choice showcasing this dual benefit might be the potential answer.

Option A presents sustainably farmed foods; it is easy to identify that any associated marketing mechanics will emphasise the benefit of such food to both people and the environment. Thus, advertisers will make a case for how sustainably farmed food is beneficial not just to the consumer but also to the world at large. This will be equivalent to the 'conflation' that we came across in the passage.

Option B mentions natural health supplements; although we can discern the benefit to the consumer, the benefits to society is hard to perceive. Similarly, Options C and D appear irrelevant; it is difficult to identify what virtues we are conflating here with the subject. 

Hence, of the given choices, Option A appears most appropriate. 

{During the Second World War, tea service was presented as a social and patriotic activity that uplifted soldiers and calmed refugees.}

{I have been offered tea at a British garden party, a Bedouin campfire, a Turkish carpet shop and a Japanese chashitsu, to name a few settings. In each case the offering was more an idea - friendship, community, respect - than a drink, and in each case the idea then created a reality. It is not a stretch to say that tea marketers have advanced the particularly noble cause of human dialogue and friendship.}

Options A, B and D have been implied in the above excerpts - we can safely assume that the author will agree to the claims made in these options.  Option C, however, has not been stated in the passage. There is no information to deduce that the author will agree with the assertions that tea became the leading drink in Britain in the nineteenth century. Thus, Option C is the correct choice.